You'll notice that this might be the most boring and basic AC article you have ever read, which completely explains why I couldn't sink my teeth into the cinematography of the film. All of the concepts and ideas behind the cinematography were so empty and uninspired.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but these are the kinds of articles that usually come around this time of the year whenever a big movie comes out. Last year it was all about Zero Dark Thirty and its use of torture, then the gears shifted to how acurate Argo really was, and now this. The idea that people assume filmmakers should be the ones to morally judge their characters is completely weird to me. I mean, since we're talking about Scorsese, who doesn't watch GoodFellas and have fun with it. It's a riot, and yet it's about mob killers. The movie doesn't judge them, it hopes for the viewer to do so based on common sense.

What this article does is exactly what it shouldn't do. It tries to talk people out of watching a movie that, either for better or worse, is about a serious subject. Again, I haven't seen it, but even if during the whole 180 minutes of it we don't see the consequences of Belfort's actions, most viewers in the audience should know them very well, they probably are feeling them themselves. We always complain about how some films dumb down audiences, but when it comes to so called "important" subjects, everybody thinks they should be talking to their audience as if they're 5 years old. If people leave the theatre idolising Belfort, well, I'm sorry to say they are as big as idiots as the ones who left A Clockwork Orange wanting to be like Alex or the ones that left Fight Club wanting to be Space Monkeys.

But what really bothers me about this piece of writing in particular is how the writer sees herself as an innocent victim (and I don't doubt she was fucked over by her dad, most of these Wall Street guys are disgusting) and unaware of what was going on around her, but at the same time talks about how much coke she did. I'm sure the poor girl didn't know drugs were illegal, and a shit ton of people die in drug trafficking.

So yeah, if the movie is bad, or long, or whatever, I get it, but I just can't get behind these kinds of campaigns.

that article is basically a promo for her own memoir, which she will publish shortly. a fact that, without having seen the film yet, feels like it's validating what I'm presuming is it's main point, that the whole of modern society has become an empty circus of greed and guiltless crimes with no self awareness whatsoever.

I've yet to see the movie either, & I posted it for that exact reason, the ridiculousness found inside that piece of published b******* just blows my mind. From what some of you have been saying it seems like Scorsese kind of did the opposite of what she's suggesting too, but I guess I'll just have to wait and see when I watch this

That letter is so dumb. I got all ranty on two different friends who posted it.

I definitely liked the movie. It's one showstopping scene after another. I still feel it was a tad long and repetitive after a while, and yet I'm not sure we got enough of what made Jordan such a great salesman.

There is a lot going on in that final scene I'm still trying to unpack.

AHAH. These people are insane. But well, in the age of reality TV, it makes complete sense for a father and daughter to use the media to trash each other publicly. Who's coming next? I bet it's a grandma.

yep. that letter is pretty funny and sad. I don't think any of them realize how crazy they and absurd they are. this guy rambling on about his "beautiful hellenic" new wife and how she has brought shame to the whole family...Sounds like a loaded family for sure.

always a pleasure to listen to this man talk about cinema.I didn't know he put 500k of his own cash when he went overbudget in the aviator. that's amazing. I wonder how many other big name directors do this and never say anything about it, like spielberg or mann or tarantino.

Interesting insights about how a lot of the tone of Wolf was found playing around on set.

That fade that comes in the middle of him listing all the filmmakers at around 03.00 is funny. Like he's been listing for hours. And that grin after he mentions putting up 500 000 for The Aviator is priceless.

But there's also something painful about the mood of the interview. He seems to be struggling quite a bit with finding motivation to do films these days.

Martin Scorsese Explains Why Future of Film is Bright in Open Letter to Daughtervia IndieWire

Quote from: Martin Scorsese

Dearest Francesca,

Iím writing this letter to you about the future. Iím looking at it through the lens of my world. Through the lens of cinema, which has been at the center of that world.

For the last few years, Iíve realized that the idea of cinema that I grew up with, thatís there in the movies Iíve been showing you since you were a child, and that was thriving when I started making pictures, is coming to a close. Iím not referring to the films that have already been made. Iím referring to the ones that are to come.

I donít mean to be despairing. Iím not writing these words in a spirit of defeat. On the contrary, I think the future is bright.

We always knew that the movies were a business, and that the art of cinema was made possible because it aligned with business conditions. None of us who started in the 60s and 70s had any illusions on that front. We knew that we would have to work hard to protect what we loved. We also knew that we might have to go through some rough periods. And I suppose we realized, on some level, that we might face a time when every inconvenient or unpredictable element in the moviemaking process would be minimized, maybe even eliminated. The most unpredictable element of all? Cinema. And the people who make it.

I donít want to repeat what has been said and written by so many others before me, about all the changes in the business, and Iím heartened by the exceptions to the overall trend in moviemaking Ė Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, David Fincher, Alexander Payne, the Coen Brothers, James Gray and Paul Thomas Anderson are all managing to get pictures made, and Paul not only got The Master made in 70mm, he even got it shown that way in a few cities. Anyone who cares about cinema should be thankful.

And Iím also moved by the artists who are continuing to get their pictures made all over the world, in France, in South Korea, in England, in Japan, in Africa. Itís getting harder all the time, but theyíre getting the films done.

But I donít think Iím being pessimistic when I say that the art of cinema and the movie business are now at a crossroads. Audio-visual entertainment and what we know as cinema Ė moving pictures conceived by individuals Ė appear to be headed in different directions. In the future, youíll probably see less and less of what we recognize as cinema on multiplex screens and more and more of it in smaller theaters, online, and, I suppose, in spaces and circumstances that I canít predict.

So why is the future so bright? Because for the very first time in the history of the art form, movies really can be made for very little money. This was unheard of when I was growing up, and extremely low budget movies have always been the exception rather than the rule. Now, itís the reverse. You can get beautiful images with affordable cameras. You can record sound. You can edit and mix and color-correct at home. This has all come to pass.

But with all the attention paid to the machinery of making movies and to the advances in technology that have led to this revolution in moviemaking, there is one important thing to remember: the tools donít make the movie, you make the movie. Itís freeing to pick up a camera and start shooting and then put it together with Final Cut Pro. Making a movie Ė the one you need to make - is something else. There are no shortcuts.

If John Cassavetes, my friend and mentor, were alive today, he would certainly be using all the equipment thatís available. But he would be saying the same things he always said Ė you have to be absolutely dedicated to the work, you have to give everything of yourself, and you have to protect the spark of connection that drove you to make the picture in the first place. You have to protect it with your life. In the past, because making movies was so expensive, we had to protect against exhaustion and compromise. In the future, youíll have to steel yourself against something else: the temptation to go with the flow, and allow the movie to drift and float away.

This isnít just a matter of cinema. There are no shortcuts to anything. Iím not saying that everything has to be difficult. Iím saying that the voice that sparks you is your voice Ė thatís the inner light, as the Quakers put it.